Trayvon and Zimmerman in a nation of laws and leftists, too

The leftist reaction to the Zimmerman verdict has been highly predictable, but equally sickening to watch nonetheless. And they don’t seem to note how much further they incriminate and/or demean their cause the more they speak. Thankfully, some of the most recent expressions are quite transparent in their evil.

The Marxist front for George Soros named Jim Wallis who masquerades as the concerned leader of a Christian ministry (Sojourners) has published a piece designed to inflame leftists and minorities over the Zimmerman verdict. The piece is so full of lies and deceitful insinuations that it makes Obama look like a conservative and Piers Morgan look like a real journalist.

And that, mind you, is after Piers just reached a new low with his spelling lesson from Trayvon’s girlfriend:

“Nigga” means “a male . . . any kind of male,” but end that word with an “-er” and “Black people, they not going to have it like that.”

I wouldn’t. But furthermore: “Creepy-a** cracka” does not refer to “a white person.” Note again, “cracka” does not have the proper grammatical suffix, “-er” for such denotation. Lacking such, “cracka” is properly defined as the following:

“That’s a person who act like they’re a police, or like security guard who acting like.”

Of course, this makes so much more sense of the facts in the case: because the first thing we all do if we believe someone is a policeman or security guard, or is even acting like one, is walk up and punch them in the face, breaking their nose, right?

Having swallowed the camel and absolved Trayvon and Rachel of any possible racialism through these cultural addenda to Webster, Piers then strains the gnat of Zimmerman’s almost certain racial motivations, leading his guest to say, “let’s be honest: racial.”

This type of media race-mongering by leftists is nothing more than ramping up emotions for a civil trial to nail Zimmerman a second time.

Along these lines, Al Sharpton openly admitted as much. Brietbart notes Sharpton’s belief that even the criminal trial was not a result of the “merits of the case,” but rather leftist agitation in the media. Don’t take my word for it. He said, “Let’s not act like we got in the Florida case because of the merits, we got there by rallying, by protesting and by raising the issue.”

And based on the same method, Sharpton wants to let out the leftist dogs in a second suit—one in which standards of conviction are lower and procedure will bear more heavily upon Zimmerman.

But we do appreciate the admission from Sharpton that leftists are not interested in the merits of the case. Let the ramp-up to public lynching begin!

The ramp up begins with plenty of leftist propaganda, and nowhere is this clearer than with Wallis’s piece, which is aimed specifically at Evangelical Christians.

Gary North has demolished much of this particular nonsense from Wallis already. I will not retread his points. But a few things must be noted yet. Remarkably, I refuted some of Wallis’ argument five years ago, when I criticized his work in God vs. Socialism. More of that in a moment.

Wallis wants us to consider a “Lament from a White Father.” The “father’s perspective” bit recalls Obama’s claim, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” That may be true. But as a certain white woman from Kansas would’ve told you, Obama racially has more in common with his fellow half-white individual George Zimmerman.

We have not heard Obama identify with this fellow. He did not even mention Zimmerman at all in his comments on the verdict. We also have not heard him identify with all of the brown-skinned and truly innocent children slain by his expanded drone program, or in the “black genocide” of abortion. But “let’s be honest,” if Obama had a son, he would look a lot like all of those babies, too. I have not heard him go there.

I have also not yet heard Piers Morgan or Jim Wallis go anywhere near there.

Wallis tilts the Zimmerman story from the start: “If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack he would have come back to his dad unharmed.”

That’s the “big if” fallacy. And “just” is the key qualifier. Because on the other hand, if your son did more than just get a snack—let’s say he punched an armed watchman in the face, jumped on top of him and reached for his gun—he would have come back to his dad. . . .

Facts matter. And all the facts matter. But not to leftist propagandists: made up facts and insinuations matter more.

But then again, like I said, they talk too much. Wallis goes on to blab: “White Christians cannot and must not leave the sole responsibility of telling the truth about America, how it has failed Trayvon Martin and so many black Americans, solely to their African American brothers and sisters in Christ.“

I can’t imagine how demeaning that must sound to black Americans. In his zeal to pound guilt into white breasts, Wallis let slip what white elitist liberals have actually been doing for decades: perpetuating the so-called white man’s burden. Blacks can’t tell the truth by themselves, apparently, they need whites to help them (but only as white liberals approve, of course).

This is the real problem at work here. These leftists, all, do nothing but create resentment, hatred, and envy among blacks, then fan the flames of those wrongful emotions to exploit blacks for a political agenda of wealth redistribution and a police state. Blacks should see that the ones truly exploiting them are the white liberal elites, Marxists, and so-called civil rights leaders like Al and Jesse, and their media accomplices. These are the people who could truly care less about blacks, but find it useful to pretend. The perpetual lie that blacks are oppressed and need political help is itself part of the oppression: the liberals find it useful to keep blacks in a state of mind that they are helpless by themselves. That is the true plantation today. It was created by leftist politicians.

Contra Wallis, the truth about America is not that it has failed Trayvon and “so many black Americans.” The truth about America is that leftist leaders have failed blacks, by lying to them about America, about truth, about justice, about everything, including about blacks.

True to his evangelical mask, Wallis waxes religious: “racial profiling is a sin in the eyes of God. It should also be a crime in the eyes of our society, and the laws we enact to protect each other and our common good.”

I could split some theological hairs over these claims, but that’s for another time. Two obvious things for now: first, just because something is a sin doesn’t mean it should be a crime. Everyone knows this, and Wallis even knows this and advocates it.

For example, covetousness is a sin. Shall we pass a law against it? Would Wallis like a law against it? Hardly. In fact, his socialism is based on envy. He wants to pass laws that promote covetousness. So much for “in the eyes of God.”

Another example: Wallis, because he is a confessing evangelical Christian, has to say that abortion for mere convenience sake is a sin. But does he advocate that it “should also be a crime”?

So now you get the point, and see the hypocrisy of Wallis’s position on alleged racial profiling.

Second, the appeal to the “common good” is the great Trojan horse of politics. This is what I covered back in 2008. What that phrase really means is that real evangelicals must shut their evangelical mouths and do the political bidding of leftists. Indeed, you have no other choice. This is no joke. Obama said so himself. As I explained:

Wallis and his leftist idols including Obama continually talk about the “common good.” Closely related to the hijacking of religious terminology, “the common good” is a way of looking religious and deceiving religious people into signing up, yet denying the Bible itself any mention that is not already censored and sanctioned by the socialist agenda. So when Wallis seems to speak boldly for the faith when he refers to “prophetic politics,” he immediately smothers the idea under a leftist pillow: “We must find a new moral and political language that transcends old divisions and seeks the common good.… Prophetic politics would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good.”[i]

Question: how does individualism survive any “weaving together” with government-mandated social programs? Exactly. To the extent that government grows individual liberty shrinks. This is the clever trick of “common good.” Who can argue against the “common good”? Are you saying you prefer the “common evil”? That’s unchristian! Then whenever a program is put forth as “for the common good,” you must either vote for it or declare yourself public enemy number one. Wallis defines it in softer language: “new civic partnerships in which everyone does their share and everybody does what they do best.”[ii] The attentive student will hear Karl Marx ringing in the background, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” . . .

That Wallis is pushing the left’s agenda and code language is again obvious. Obama says, “Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.”[iii] This really means evangelicals must leave the foundation of their religion outside the doors of city hall, and Obama is honest about this: “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.”

That is the leftists’ answer: “We have no choice.” The vaunted side of pro-choice is anti-choice when it comes to biblical faith being explicit. They want the name “biblical faith,” and they want the voting appeal of “biblical faith,” but when it comes to actual policy-making the Bible must be removed from the table. It must be replaced by “the common good.”

So you can see clearly who’s actually polarizing America. And you can see who is polarizing and exploiting black America. It is not middle-class whites, or half-hispanics who carry self-defense weapons. It is the political left and its media machine. And in the attempt to see that polarization reflected among Christians, Jim Wallis is at the forefront of that machine.

He just so happens be among the most transparent as well.

I think one of the most important areas where this can begin to change is in the black pulpit. Jesus and God’s Law must be held high to expose the ungodly foundations of leftist political solutions, and the exploitation of blacks inherent in the deal. There is much more to say, but the Bible is the beginning point to say it. I am only in the beginning stages of a project to help bring this about.

Wow. I cannot believe we are worshipping the same God who says he has no respector persons and he made everyone and loves all people. I do not believe a grown man and a young boy are equals. Travon was minding his own business and was not doing any thing wrong and should not have been followed and harassed in any way. Young Black males are being profiled with the new las. Stand your ground to justify killing them as was done in slavery and Jim crow ism . You and others are pretending you do not realize this. Do not stand behind Christianiyt to feed your racial hatred for others you do not like.

I agree with the Zimmerman verdict. Even if the prosecutions position is more likely than the story told by Zimmerman, that is not the test. Many people, including the jury, believed that Zimmerman's story was reasonably possible. Thus he should not have been convicted. My personal opinion is that Zimmerman's explanation of what happened is the most likely. But that is only an opinion based upon the evidence that I heard. We may never know what actually took place. But, the verdict was correct, even if my opinion is wrong. There was clearly a reasonable doubt about the issue of self defense.

I cannot agree with Tony who states that a true Christian should be against free religious freedom. I am a Christian, and I believe that it would be great if religious freedom were free. The error is in believing that it IS free, or believing that religious freedom should not apply to certain religious groups or to atheists. Many have paid dearly to help give us our religious freedom. The only limitation to that freedom should be that any religious belief not impose threats, force, or harm on others.

"Of course, this makes so much more sense of the facts in the case: because the first thing we all do if we believe someone is a policeman or security guard, or is even acting like one, is walk up and punch them in the face, breaking their nose, right?"
It is actually an opinion, not a fact, that Trayvon walked right up to Zimmerman and punched him in the face because he thought he was a cop. Unless you were there and actually saw it happen, you cannot say that this is a fact. You could take a page from the testimony of Dr. Shiping Bao, who makes a fine distinction between facts and opinions. Why would you call this a fact when no one except Zimmerman and Trayvon knows whether it is a fact or not? This is, as usual, very sloppy thinking on your part. All you've done in this post is reveal that you actually don't know anything about the case at all

It's apparent you never even thought that the jury mattered. If your life was on the line like Mr. Zimmermans life was , you'd want a jury to decide whether you were guilty or not. You instead throw out your own uninformed view that Travon was doing nothing wrong and should not have been followed. Please admit to yourself at least , that you were not on the jury, you did not listen to the entire trial and you were not there with Travon when this incident happened ! If you admit your ignorance in this matter , you may like the fact that a jury of your peers will judge you ( If you ever need them ) rather than some naysayer from left field whom never knew the facts or personally knew of Travons background and temperment. Travon attacked Zimmerman and since the local community placed Zimmerman as a roving patrol in a area where break-ins were occurring ,There was, a reason to follow a suspicious person going threw the neighborhood at night. Police often show up long after any break-in or other activity occurs. If Travon didn't attack Zimmerman he'd still be alive, you have a right to defend yourself and the Supreme Court has already determined Police are under No Obligation to protect you ! They have no skin in the game, when You try to protect Yourself !

Where to start with this passel of fallacies? A "young boy" who is a nearly 18 YO 6'3" 190 lbs athlete is more than a match for a short, overweight 30ish non-athlete.
Martin had jumped a fence in a gated community, thus was trespassing. Not legal and hardly "minding his own business." That community had a history of break-ins and a lack of police response, hence a neighborhood watch was completely justified as was following someone not recognized as a member of the community by virtue of his illegal entry into that neighborhood. It is in no way "harassment" to follow a law-breaker (trespasser) after he has committed his crime.
"Stand your ground" did not apply in this case in any way and never was considered since it did not fit the necessary criteria. This was a clear case of self-defense as the defense in the case proved when it showed conclusively that Zimmerman was on the ground shooting up at an angle towards his attacker, Mr. Martin who had made a VERY adult decision to go back and attack Zimmerman, punching him in the face and breaking his nose then ramming his head into the pavement requiring several stitches and causing a concussion while stating "you're going to die tonight," instead of completing his journey home which would have made the incident benign.
Stand Your Ground allows a victim to practice his right not to retreat when attacked. Zimmerman was given no chance to retreat. hence the moot nature of the "Stand Your Ground" law in this case.
Anxiously awaiting your counter-arguments.

If God loves everyone the same, why does He send so many to Hell? If God loves the sinner, but hates the sin, why does He send sinners to Hell and lets the sins go free? Why not just eliminate a person's ability to sin? Wouldn't that be the loving way to handle it?

hold on a minute John what of the first and second commandments? If US law was based on those then there would be no religious freedom, also Christians believe that gay marriage and abortion are wrong cause God said its wrong and that laws should be made to ban those things.... well guess what God also said worshiping other gods is also wrong....